leagueoflegendsfandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:Administrator and Bureaucrat issues
Hey everyone. I am creating this forum to see what everybody's thoughts are. First of all I have requested administrator rights for myself. I had questioned a specific opposing vote (Kaz) for what reason he opposed. We talked for a bit and then he suddenly left saying to post anything else on the wiki. So here it is. I would like to inform everyone of the unfairness that this wiki is producing. Supposedly, after looking here there is a rule that was added that long ago that has been ignored until the middle of my nomination. The rule states, "Any registered user can vote in permission requests or nominations, but community consensus is only needed for administrator and bureaucrat requests. Moderator and rollback requests are granted by a bureaucrat, but everyone is welcome to voice their opinion in them. Each user may vote once in each request or nomination.", but this hasn't been brought up ironically enough until the ending of my admin nomination. Kaz said that there hasn't been any passing nominations for admins or crats with opposing votes. Well I have a complaint against that statement. If that was the case then this should have been the closing for that nomination, however the nomination was left open to pass, even though this certain rule was supposed to be followed. The rule says that everyone needs to decide on what the nomination turns out to be, well then what happened to my nomination? I had 10 positive votes against 2 opposing. The majority should have decided it. Well it turns out that the rule is supposed to mean that all crats have to agree. Kaz first said that I needed at least 1 supporting crat, which I did, but then changed it to all crats, which doesn't make sense. We have all been following the rule as proposed here and here. Also Kaz added yet another rule, as seen here, the nomination should have passed with the new rule (no opposing votes), well why didnt it then? I want to hear what everyone else thinks about this unjust rule that was never used in any sysop nomination until today. 05:31, 7/6/2011 : "community consensus" not "bureaucrat consensus", also the request for permissions have no rules about how much time do they have to be open. And finally I didn't even make the rules i just followed them. Why is it necessary for an Admin and Buraucrat to have this the community consensus? Well, because he represents the entire Community. ::Yes community consensus, I met the requirement of 8 positive votes in 24 hours. You said in chat that you need to talk to the rest of the crats about it, that isnt community consensus. And you keep making up things that dont even apply to me. And now you have a blog about a new rule for inactivity. This should have all been done and enforced after the nominations, but during them. I don't know what else to explain to you because you keep bringing up new things every time I clear all the issues. 06:34, 7/6/2011 :::Tech has a point, the rule on request were a certain number of positive votes (supports - opposes) depending on the level of RfR. But then a time limit was imposed which was confusing, so my proposal which may pleased everyone is: Upon reaching the requirement, wait 24 hours and close the Request. If not reaching the requirement upon a week, then it is closed as unsuccesful. And Tech, you have currently 10 supports - 3 opposes, which leaves you at 7 positive votes. 16:21, July 6, 2011 (UTC) ::::Sorry Sam but that rule just doesn't exist, the rules are at the top of the page here, and those rules have been enforced since the moment they were written. :::::That is how it worked when I joined, I rememeber. And there are no rules on that link... just a general guideline of how it works. 17:15, July 6, 2011 (UTC) :::::i agree with sam here the rules on that page or very ill defined. The problem is with community consensus. On a wiki that is very ill defined as can be seen here. So do we mean 100% of the popular vote? That means if 99 people think he would do a good job and 1 person disagrees he doesn't get the job. I think that argument is crazy. Similarly what if 10 people agree and 9 oppose, does he get it then? I wouldn't give it to him in that position either. This has been debated again and again on forums, blogs and request threads. Each one seem to come to a different opinion or result. There was a forum post where i thought we had finely decided this but i can't seem to find it. The way Sam describes it is how i thought it works right now and i thought we where all agreed on that. Im not blaming people for having different ideas or opinions on this, the problem lies with not having an official detailed policy in writing that everyone can refer to. Neither the Request for permission nor User Rights pages do a good enough job. You need to define 3 things :::::*Quarum: Minimum number of votes requred. I suggest 8 to 10 :::::*Votes needed for win: This should be a fraction, no number. Ajraddatz suggested 80% which seems reasonable. :::::*Time limit for vote: 24h after votes have stopped comeing in is a good one, or maybe a set time of 5 days. :::::Do that for every position plus any other prerequisites you feel necessary such as minimum number of edits and such. That will end all these discussion we keep on having over and over again. 18:08, July 6, 2011 (UTC) (If somebody thinks this inappropriate, by all means please delete it, just let me know first, why you doing so.) But in my opinion, just make Tech a Bureaucrat level user. Then he'll have maximum user level and maximum number of badges and then we can move on with our lives with less stress for everyone. -- 11:50, July 6, 2011 (UTC) :hahaha... I don't know if it was a joke or not but I still laughed so hard i needed to go to the bathroom. Reasons were explained, if someone else considers that the actions taken were in anyway wrong, please do explain. Tech - Starting this topic was the exact opposite of the advice I gave you. Asperon Thorn 16:24, July 6, 2011 (UTC) *Per the results of a forum I started a while back, all requests should generally be open for a week, and at the end of that week there should be around 80% support for the candidate. Of course both are just general guidelines, and can be modified depending on the type of request, number of users voting on it, etc. Anyways, I personally think that we should follow this system, rather than making overly bureaucratic rules about 24 hours, "score" of +9001, etc. Much simpler to just have 1 week and 80% support, with modification possible either upon the closing 'crats judgement, or a request on the RfA (to be extended, if the opposers are writing paragraphs and the supporters don't provide a reason, etc). 17:45, July 6, 2011 (UTC) *:Also, my goodness Tech, it's just adminship. 17:46, July 6, 2011 (UTC) *::My point as well, but it seems that it's a big deal for several entities involved. So, my opinion ^ up there. -- 18:14, July 6, 2011 (UTC) *::I wrote a supporting reason just for you Ajr. Asperon Thorn 18:15, July 6, 2011 (UTC) :::I just wanted to bring up that the definition of consensus is not what is being demonstrated here. I even looked up the word yesterday on wikipedia and it is a general agreement, not a decision only meant to be made up between all of the crats, as Kaz stated in chat. Also Anti, I will admit, I found your joke to be a bit funny as well. 18:24, 7/6/2011 :Tech, just the 'required votes in 24 hours' doesn't mean anything if everybody isn't given enough time to allow their input. A full week should be allowed for those who may not have been able to get on right after the vote was put up. The point isn't how fast you can get all your possitive votes but an overall consensus from the community. Also is it just me or has Tech been at the center of every promotion/adminship/power 'issue' that has come up in the past few months? ::Ok, so why hasn't it been like that, is my question. Also, I don't think I am the center of it, I am simply trying to solve issues that are left unsolved. 19:47, 7/6/2011